Music of The Ainur pours forth from you Valinorean mouth. I hope the films are great, but I think that some of the enthusiasts need a bit of a reality check.

I understand, however, that there are multiple types of enthusiasts present, and that clouds the waters. Some are mainly concerned that Peter stay true to his prior movies. These will no doubt be pleased.

One of the reasons I didn't quite leap for joy when I heard Del Toro was leaving to hand the reigns back to Peter was that sometimes, if a secondary artist in the form of an adaptor becomes too close to another artist's work (and is very successful with it) he or she may begin to take greater liberties with the work, deeming their own vision to be coeval or even superior to the original.

That the original film trilogy couldn't make time for Bombadil nor for Gildor, nor any hint of The Barrow Wights (because they were superflous), nor even for a spoken line or two from Glorfindel who lived in Rivendell, was close to Gandalf and Elrond, and had already been cheated out of his proper place, yet somehow justification is being made for two entire extra films worth of material for the much simpler tale of The Hobbit is rather mind boggling.

In Reply To

But the fact is that I found the LOTR films only good, not great.

So I don't have the supreme confidence in him that other people do.

He had plenty of original Tolkien material in LOTR to make three films, and he still managed to disappoint me on several occasions.

And now he wants to make three films out of of a book barely needs one?

What part of that am I supposed to trust?

And as for having a negative opinion before I have facts, the people raving about what a fabulous idea this is have no more facts than I do. If their opinions are valid and acceptable, then so are mine.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I don't find PJ's use of slow mo in LOTR excessive. Yes - even the much-dreaded 'bed-jumping' scene at the end of ROTK. I don't find it odd at all. I thought it's very dream-like and appropriate. Maybe I was too young to understand film language when I saw it. But I find it ok. When I saw King Kong, it came to the point where I almost cringe everytime there's a slow mo (particularly when Ann is about to cross the bridge and Kong was eventually captured in Skull Island.)

As for The Hobbit, I just fear that PJ will still over use slow mo everytime something significant happen. Just look at the trailer: the singing dwarves, Bilbo approaching Narsil, Bilbo unsheating Sting... I mean, maybe it was only for trailer use, but if he used those slow mo's sparingly, he might have reverted to a two-Hobbit film adaptation.

My guess is that if PJ had the option of a six-film LOTR at the time (which it seems he really didn't) he would have gladly included all the wonderful details you mentioned. But because the first series was a bit of a gamble, it was three and out. Therefore, not much room for such scenes...

Now that PJ has more leeway, and his investors are generally far more comfortable with their investment, he finally has the chance to not be forced to make painful cuts and compressions. He has a chance to avoid the mistakes (or realities) of his LOTR adventure.

In that context, shouldn't we be happy to know that virtually nothing at all is likely to be cut? Barring, perhaps, the talking purse?

I am really concerned. I get that the current situation, and the Studio, call for this. I understand it would be more profitable (and of course, if this supposes more jobs for PJ staff, the better), and it would be foolish to let the opportunity to sell a full new Tolkien movie trilogy pass. But, I'm worried about the quality of the product. And the story, oh Eru, the story. LOTR worked as a film trilogy because the main conflict was powerful and clear: the greatest evil must be destroyed by the smallest of things. That was Frodo's journey. But, what would become of Bilbo's journey? I don't see how his story would be stretched for three 3 hours movies. I read on other post that this is no longer The Hobbit but the LOTR prequel. Really? And now I'm more concerned. *sigh*

But if you didn't like LOTR that much, don't hold your breath on The Hobbit movies. PJ's style basically hasn't changed. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.

Though I think it was both bad execution, and not enough time to accommodate both PJ's love of extended action sequences, and Tolkien's rich tale. I also think that a large part of the bad execution was in the script, and that the script was severely constrained by the simple fact that they had only three films to tell the story. So length may have impacted execution.

My perspective is somewhat realistic. I understand that PJ has certain indulgences, and understand that I will have to accept that. In this context, I think a longer film keeps the door open for him to indulge (the stuff I generlly dislike) as well as tell a compelling story.

In other words, instead of choosing extended action over the nuances in the books, he will simply included both.

As a fan of both the book and the movies, I really don't mind visiting Middle Earth every year until 2014. Someone else already mentioned this, but as wonderful as the LOTR movie trilogy was, we know Peter had to cut out and edit alot of the story to fit it into 3 films. To me some of ROTK suffered because of this. If Peter had the resources back then to make 6 movies, I'm sure it would've been great as well. Now that Peter has proven himself (with 11 Oscars), I don't mind that he wants to take the time to flesh out the rich stories and characters that we all know and love. Besides I will not judge until I see the finished product, but I have faith that Peter will make it work.

If the Hobbit wasn't a clearly inferior story and book, which hadn't even a hint of a link to Tolkien's vast universe when it was first written. Now, if we were speaking of things out of the Silmarillion, or of remaking LOTR with 5 more hours of movies after the Hobbit is released, it would be fine. But seeing the better story staying as it is - really great, but not mind-blowingly perfect - while the Hobbit gets all the love and attention is quite frustrating, to say the less. "Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

I love the books (the hobbit & lotr) with all my heart. PJ made some changes I didn't love but as a whole they were great translations of the lotr, and I don't expect anything different in the hobbit. If anything adding this new material will only take what I figure to be great films and make them better. I believe Jackson loves middle-earth as much as most of us do and he will do what's right by the material to give us the best experience once again in middle-earth.

Because I think relying on mere impressions and gut feelings might not seem solid enough. Yet, really, anyone who has read both books can clearly see that you would be able to do a 20-h monster with LOTR, while a mere 3-hours movie is probably enough to do the Hobbit justice; now, if you add ancient stories and what was going on at the time of the Hobbit events, of course, you might well need more time and 2 shorter movies. But the story itself, as such, is far shorter and has far less development, notably character development, than LOTR. Though I can see it being an issue with a movie adaptation and with the sizable amount of different dwarves to deal with - with scriptwriters wanting to flesh them out a bit. "Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Well you can do either in any amount of time really - it just depends what one does with it.

LOTR for example has been done in 13 hours, 11.5 hours, 9.5 hours, 6 hours, and a half in 2 hours, (amongst others).

Of course the length of the text hasn't changed.

Similarly The Hobbit text doesn't have an intrinsic duration when translated to another medium. You can do it in three hours, or an hour and a bit or four hours or seven and half hours or in 12 minutes.

The opposite of Too Cold may be Too Hot, but Too Hot is NOT an acceptable alternative. There is a such thing as a happy medium. It isn't so much that we are spoiled, as that we do not want this beloved tale spoiled by the excesses of a film team becoming too comfortable in taking liberties with the work.

I have encountered plenty of people in my unpaid promotion of The Hobbit, who have griped about how they might not see it, because they couldn't really get into LOTR. Even as I debated that they had not properly understood and appreciated LOTR, I assured them, "The Hobbit is far less dense, and is lighter in tone. . . a wonderful adventure, but not near so ponderous and heavy. . . probably only one three plus hour film, etc. etc. etc., you'll love it."

Well. I will now officially eat those words. A lot of casual moviegoers who would have happily sat through at least one and possibly two Hobbit films, are going to turn away from these films. They will not become classic Holiday programming for the networks like Wizard of Oz and, ironically, the animated Rankin&Bass Hobbit, because they will be too long. In the end, they will largely be mirrors of LOTR, reaching no broader an audience because the structure is too similar, though inappropriately so.

In Reply To

Don't all of you remember the era between 2006-2008? We thought we'd never see even one hobbit movie. Now we get three, and ya'll are complaining. Geez. Peter Jackson did great with LOTR. Don't be so quick in giving judgment against these movies. I'm very excited.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Oh there was certainly some of that in LOTR. And sadly, some things that should have been
[In reply to]

Can't Post

in the films (like our dear Glorfindel) were apparently stowed away in their bums for safe keeping, whilst tripe was pulled out in their stead.

I still love the LOTR films. I will love The Hobbit Movies, I think. But not in the way that I might have. I will never watch with complete satisfaction, but always with nagging thoughts of "they really should have done. . .. and they really should NOT have done. . . "

In Reply To

that there wasn't any of that in LOTR?

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

If the Hobbit wasn't a clearly inferior story and book, which hadn't even a hint of a link to Tolkien's vast universe when it was first written. Now, if we were speaking of things out of the Silmarillion, or of remaking LOTR with 5 more hours of movies after the Hobbit is released, it would be fine. But seeing the better story staying as it is - really great, but not mind-blowingly perfect - while the Hobbit gets all the love and attention is quite frustrating, to say the less.

For all its being a "children's book," TH is in many ways the more advanced and successful work of art, mainly because it manages to operate on so many different levels at once. The stuff going on under the surface, with complex commentary on at least sixty motifs of traditional literature through the eyes of an early twentieth-century replacement anti-hero, is carried out with such effortlessness of art and simplicity of prose style that it usually goes unnoticed—which is why it usually doesn't get the credit it deserves. By contrast, LotR, while obviously much more epic, was only finally and barely squeezed out through almost two decades of constant struggle, stops and restarts, self-doubt, and re-re-revision. And all that strain of the seams certainly does show in the finished product. It hangs together far less cohesively as a whole than its predecessor (although it's a testament to its ultimate greatness that the multitude of imperfections fail to matter all that much by the end.)

Of course, I don't expect any of what makes TH truly great to make it into any screen adaptation, let alone Jackson's, so in the final analysis you're probably right. Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

...They will not become classic Holiday programming for the networks like Wizard of Oz...

I use The Wizard of Oz a lot in what I write and I feel your affection for it and holiday family time. But the television era has passed. It's gone. We are no longer at the mercy of the networks or their schedule, nor do we want to go back to those old days. NBC is receiving a backlash (#NBCfail) because they are trying to force people to watch the Olympics during prime time to preserve their old advertising model instead of understanding what people want in a more modern age. We don't sit around the radio at night any more and we won't sit around the TV during holidays either. Everything is on media, online and on demand. It is an antiquated argument.